<dh@.> wrote
<snip repetition>

>>I understand it. The point you made above doesn't change anything, you are
>>still trying to extract some moral credit from that act of combining egg
>>and
>>sperm, and it just doesn't work. It doesn't deserve any.
>
> It provides life for an animal. Life that it otherwise would NOT have.

That fact has no moral content. The morally relevant facts are; the animal
was bred to be food, well-treated or not, killed humanely or not, sold and
consumed. Combining egg and sperm for the purpose of creating a product
involves no sacrifice, no "consideration" of the well-being of any animal.
Those are the morally relevant concepts in this equation.

The rest is just more of your rubbish.